Trump says illegal immigrants should be deported with 'no judges or court cases'

[webfact]

Trump says illegal immigrants should be deported with 'no judges or court cases'

By Doina Chiacu and Sarah N. Lynch

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Nevada Republican Party Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., June 23, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Sunday that people who enter the United States illegally should be sent back immediately to where they came from without any judicial process, likening them to invaders who are trying to "break into" the country.

 

His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision, which applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

 

In a series of tweets on Sunday, Trump said: "We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came."

 

"Cannot accept all of the people trying to break into our Country. Strong Borders, No Crime!"

 

It was unclear if Trump was advocating an expansion of the provision that allows expedited removals of illegal immigrants at or near the U.S. border, a policy his administration has embraced since he took office. Nor did Trump differentiate between illegal immigrants and people who entered the United States to seek asylum protection.

 

The White House did not return a call seeking clarification.

 

"The president of the United States has just forcefully proposed the end of political asylum and no due process for migrants," Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, wrote on Twitter.

 

Lee Gelernt, the deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants’ Rights Project, told Reuters: "The administration cannot simply get rid of all process for immigrants. The due process clause absolutely applies. It's not a choice."

 

Authorities can bypass due process protections with the expedited removals policy that allows quick deportations if an immigrant is apprehended within 100 miles (160 km) of the border and has been in the country less than 14 days. Those seeking asylum must be granted a hearing.

 

Trump's tweets on Sunday came after a week of global outcry over images and video of crying children and their distraught parents separated at the U.S.-Mexico border. Critics in Trump's Republican Party, as well as his wife and daughter, urged him to abandon the policy.

 

The president buckled to the pressure on Wednesday, issuing an executive order that ended the separations. But the government has yet to reunite more than 2,000 children with their parents.

 

TRUMP FUMES OVER IMMIGRATION

But Trump's frustration over the issue only grew. He has issued a drumbeat of criticism of the immigration system and Democrats in Congress, while using increasingly harsh terms such as "invasion" and "infestation" to describe illegal immigration.

 

"Here, I think he is making it clear, he just doesn't want anybody here. He wants people to just be sent back, no matter what," said Jorge Baron, executive director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, who compared Sunday's tweets with comments Trump was reported to have made in January about immigrants from "shithole" countries.

 

While some who advocate for stricter immigration rules have argued that people are making fraudulent asylum claims or abusing the loopholes in U.S. immigration laws, Baron said Trump's views went way beyond those arguments.

 

Trump's "zero tolerance" policy of prosecuting adults for entering the country illegally entails a process that typically takes many months. That required children to be separated from parents because they are not legally allowed to be kept in detention for more than 20 days.

 

Keeping the children with their migrant parents as they await court proceedings faces obstacles, however, including the lack of sufficient housing, a paucity of immigration judges and a daunting backlog of cases.

 

Under expedited removal proceedings, which are used most commonly at ports of entry, an immigration official can evaluate an immigrant's claim and reject it with no involvement by an immigration judge or review board.

 

The Trump administration called last year for the expansion of the expedited removals programme to immigrants who have been in the country illegally for up to two years.

 

There is an exception from expedited removal for those with a credible fear of returning home.

 

Lindsay Harris, an assistant professor of law at the University of the District of Columbia, said those with no credible fear could still see a judge, while those with such a fear could begin a long legal process that eventually could result in asylum and applying for a work permit.

"It's already an extremely truncated process," the ACLU's Gelernt said. "The president’s suggestion that there is a ton of process for these individuals is simply wrong. There are already people being removed with a truncated process."

 

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu and Sarah N. Lynch; Additional reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-25

[pegman]

If the majority people of the world had their way Trump would be locked up without judge or court case.

[stevenl]

He is preaching to his base, they love this.

[darksidedog]

Whether it be immigrants or a different issue, when the President starts calling for action that is in flagrant breach of the Constitution, something is seriously wrong. This is not about the man himself, this is about respect for the most basic laws that govern the country, and if the President has no respect for them, the country is in trouble.

[The Renegade]

21 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Whether it be immigrants or a different issue, when the President starts calling for action that is in flagrant breach of the Constitution, something is seriously wrong.

DarksideDog

 

A genuine question. 

 

The OP says

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Trump says illegal immigrants should be deported with 'no judges or court cases'

Are illegal immigrants actually covered by the Constitution ?

 

 

[captspectre]

is that not what the Thai's do now? the Japanese? the koreans? the cambodians? the Lao? even the mexicans? all the trump haters forget that the rest of the world are not snowflakes and liberals! 

[Expatthailover]

Nothing this man utters should surprise anyone.

Total and utter flagrant disregard for anyone but himself and trusted family members. 

Don the draft dodger strikes again.

Spending too much time with despots like Kim and Putin and now he wants their type of control.

[DoctorG]

Many people at airports around the world are denied entry and simple put back on the next flight home.

[BigC]

Could do with more Donald trumps in this world

[darksidedog]

16 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

DarksideDog

 

A genuine question. 

 

The OP says

 

Are illegal immigrants actually covered by the Constitution ?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, webfact said:

His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision, which applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. 

I believe there is your answer. Laws are there for a reason and should not be circumvented by anyone, for any reason.

[PBarnfeather]

Maybe, for a few minutes, Trump had a brain. Maybe he borrowed it.

[charmonman]

16 minutes ago, captspectre said:

is that not what the Thai's do now? the Japanese? the koreans? the cambodians? the Lao? even the mexicans? all the trump haters forget that the rest of the world are not snowflakes and liberals! 

A large portion of the rest of the world is ruled by dictators and despots who have no respect for human rights and only want to enrich themselves at the expense of their own citizens. If it weren’t for your so-called “snowflakes and liberals” that’s what the US would become under Generalissimo Trump.

[Silurian]

25 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

 

Are illegal immigrants actually covered by the Constitution ?

 

 

When a simple google search will suffice...

 

Does The Constitution Protect Non-Citizens? Judges Say Yes

 

Quote

Cases extending back to the 1800s, including ones brought by Chinese immigrants challenging the arbitrary seizure of their property, have established the rights of non-citizens under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments including due process and the right to a jury.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

DarksideDog

 

A genuine question. 

 

The OP says

 

Are illegal immigrants actually covered by the Constitution ?

 

 

Yes.

 

The Constitution covers all acts by the US government.

[charmonman]

14 minutes ago, BigC said:

Could do with more Donald trumps in this world

Already have them. They’ve got names like Putin, Kim, Erdogan, Thaksin ...

[Baerboxer]

46 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Whether it be immigrants or a different issue, when the President starts calling for action that is in flagrant breach of the Constitution, something is seriously wrong. This is not about the man himself, this is about respect for the most basic laws that govern the country, and if the President has no respect for them, the country is in trouble.

 

And that's true of any country - or should be. 

 

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chancellors, or whatever - once they start disrespecting the constitutional laws and systems of their countries, it's a slippery slope.

 

It seems a great many around the world are at this moment in time.

[inThailand]

Isn't he really referring to anyone trying to or did enter the country across non authorized crossing points?

[The Renegade]

9 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

 

I believe there is your answer. Laws are there for a reason and should not be circumvented by anyone, for any reason.

Thanks for the ( kind of ) answer.

 

Quote

His proposal drew immediate criticism from legal analysts and immigrant rights advocates who said it would violate the U.S. Constitution's due process provision,

Legal analysts working alongside immigration rights advocates are hardly a neutral voice of reason.

 

10 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Laws are there for a reason and should not be circumvented by anyone, for any reason.

This is correct, and this is exactly what Illegals are doing, circumventing the Law.

 

 

[taipan1949]

28 minutes ago, captspectre said:

is that not what the Thai's do now? the Japanese? the koreans? the cambodians? the Lao? even the mexicans? all the trump haters forget that the rest of the world are not snowflakes and liberals! 

I agree with you completely. I worked in China and Cuba and it was the same, stay "legal" with your Visa and you were more than welcome. After 30 years in Thailand I also did the Visa trips etc. and stayed "legal". Now in the Philippines, who also offer deportation and banning to people who do not comply with THEIR LAWS I am currently in the process of getting my ACR-1 Card which will give me five years of total freedom to come and go as I please and also allows me to receive Philippine Health Services.

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Whether it be immigrants or a different issue, when the President starts calling for action that is in flagrant breach of the Constitution, something is seriously wrong. This is not about the man himself, this is about respect for the most basic laws that govern the country, and if the President has no respect for them, the country is in trouble.

It’s not just that the President calls for a flagrant breach of the Constitution nor his lack of respect for basic laws that govern the country.

 

It’s also, perhaps as much, about the willingness of his supporters to turn a blind eye to these abuses or, worse still, actively support them.

 

We’ll see (already have seen)  examples of this as the discussion in this thread progresses.

[mokwit]

18 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

 

I believe there is your answer. Laws are there for a reason and should not be circumvented by anyone, for any reason.

Does that include immigration laws and illegal immigrants or do they get a free pass in your book?

[ThreeEyedRaven]

2 minutes ago, The Renegade said:

Thanks for the ( kind of ) answer.

 

Legal analysts working alongside immigration rights advocates are hardly a neutral voice of reason.

 

This is correct, and this is exactly what Illegals are doing, circumventing the Law.

 

 

So by your logic, because illegals, who ARE covered by the constitution for due process, are breaking the law, that justifies the President advocating doing the same does it? The President should uphold the law, at all costs.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

[ezzra]

Easy for everyone to hide behind the PC cloak roll their eyes to the sky and be merciful and pious like, the question that should be asked is how many more illegal migrants can the US take in before the social system collapses and true american will be left without jobs or social security care because the government and the system are overloaded taking care of millions of undocumented aliens mostly with young children? and when will it all stops? anyone with a coherent answer here or everyone is busy vilifying and demonising Trump?...

[mokwit]

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And that's true of any country - or should be. 

 

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chancellors, or whatever - once they start disrespecting the constitutional laws and systems of their countries, it's a slippery slope.

 

It seems a great many around the world are at this moment in time.

What about when illegal immigrants disrespect our laws and their first act in the country is to break the law?

[blazes]

How many of us here on ThaiVisa go through all the hoops of remaining "legal" residents of Thailand.

We acknowledge (most of us) the laws of the land and freely admit that Thailand has every right to restrict immigration.  

Isn't this, basically, what the US is doing?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Does that include immigration laws and illegal immigrants or do they get a free pass in your book?

The issue under discussion is not immigration, it is the President proposing suspension of Law, an attack on the Constitution.

[charmonman]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

Does that include immigration laws and illegal immigrants or do they get a free pass in your book?

Illegal immigrants get arrested and are subjected to the legal process. They don't get a free pass. Even under Obama there were so many deportations that some on the left called him the "Deporter in Chief". The difference he never proposed bypassing the legal system for doing so.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

So by your logic, because illegals, who ARE covered by the constitution for due process, are breaking the law, that justifies the President advocating doing the same does it? The President should uphold the law, at all costs.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/mar/29/florida-immigrant-coalition/do-undocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

Actually he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

[The Renegade]

Just now, ThreeEyedRaven said:

So by your logic, because illegals,

By my logic.

 

As I very clearly stated,  is that Illegals are Illegals and they are circumventing the very Laws that others are screaming about.

 

Whether that be in the US, the EU, the UK or Thailand

[darksidedog]

4 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Does that include immigration laws and illegal immigrants or do they get a free pass in your book?

No. They don't get a free pass. They need to be dealt with by the law. There is law in place, for exactly this purpose. Are you telling me the President should get a free pass to break the law? Or is he above it in your eyes?